Why are you repeating this? I know this quote better than you, I found it. You test sth that is the most reasonable and then you tweak details. They didn't start testing with 200 or 400 meters, did they? That doesn't mean anything to you? Well, then get prepared for some surprises and a lot of ff on your back.
Infantry weapons in most mainstream FPS games only have an effective range (not to be confused with maximum range) of ~30-50m anyway, with the sole exception of sniper rifles. Past that you "can" plink, but your target would have to either already be badly wounded or they'd have to stand there and let you shoot them 5-12 (depending on the weapon/game) times on semi-auto. This is likely a holdover from the days when we lacked the computing power to render large open spaces, so players were unlikely to have a target more than 30m away anyway due to cramped map design. Though the fact that mainstream FPS weapons are generally designed to be used on full-auto while RL weapons are generally intended to be fired semi-auto or in short bursts (because you really only need one good hit to wound someone badly enough to take them out of the fight, if not kill them) contributes. It does not interfere with Friendly Fire at all. It's simply a consequence of how many bullets the players can eat. It would be nice if EC tried to push effective ranges out to take advantage of the game's scale, but if they don't it would not be a significant deviation from the mainstream.
What? i know lots of games where assault rifle's range is normal or close to normal: around 200 meters at least - and this is effective range, not maximum, the maximum one is at least 600 meters. Nobody is going to waste their ammo for 'plinking' in EC as it was already stated by the devs that it will be in small amounts and managing it economically will be one of the key points of this game. No significant deviation from mainsteream, uhmm, right, keep on deluding yourself. And ofc this short range will have impact on the whole game, engagements will be very tihgt, tihgter than in any other game because of many reasons stated many times before, among them the range of primary weapons, + pistols will have it even shorter.
Project Reality, ARMA, and Red Orchestra have 200m+ effective ranges, which is made possible by the fact that in these games most weapons can drop you in 2-3 shots, and generally send you running for a medic with just 1. Battlefield 2 had effective ranges somewhere between 50m and 100m, though actual engagement ranges tended to be heavily dictated by map design (dense urban maps often saw firefights less than 10m apart). Most weapons dropped their target in ~4-6 hits, and although you didn't bleed out you didn't regenerate either so after 2-3 hits you were usually looking for a medic instead of fighting. CoD, Halo, PS2, and newer Battlefield games generally have effective ranges at 50m +/- 20. These are games where you can eat 7+ bullets and if you survive with even 1 HP left you regenerate to full in a couple seconds. Like I said, it's a function of how many shots you need to land more than anything else, though regenerating health really can kick mid-long ranged combat in the balls by making even plinking a waste of time. Taking damage from friendly fire *is* slightly more common in games like CoD/Halo/PS2, but this is counteracted by the fact that you can safely take a couple extra bullets without dying and the lost HP simply regenerates. In a game like PR/ARMA/RO friendly fire is more lethal, but happens less often. Overall the two balance each other out so that it functions equally well in both styles of game.
This is most definelty a joke or he might have been referring to measurement in in-game tiles in which it was poorly phrased. Kind of like in strategy games have weapons have a range where it is measured based on in game tiles, he might have been referring to that. For all we know they could completely reverse their assumptions of ranges. The one thing I want to know is if there is going to be projectile drop and also if certain weapons will "phase out" after a certain range.
Oh no, don't use table top mechanics. If we do then I will explode every time I use a plasma based weapon since I only seem to roll 1s with those.
Thanks I didn't know that. If im not mistaken the scale for tt is 1:65 so that would put the 24 inch range at about 39.6 meters.
I disagree. PS2 keeps being brought up as it is one of the few massive shooters available. And while I agree it will be a much different experience it is the closest thing we have to make a comparison too. It is also relevant as it was one of the sources the Devs took inspiration from. So, I would get used to seeing the references. Also, you make the assumption that the mechanics are complete opposites, I can't imagine that will be the case, there will be many similarities, enough to be able to still use PS2 as a relevant comparison for the time being. Until we get our hands on EC, you can't speak to anything in an absolute. I keep seeing: EC will be like this, EC will be like that. You don't know, no one does not even the devs at this point. This is why releasing this much information at this early stage is dangerous. You get people that grasp at any little piece of information and try to use it like fact. You are basically taking a privilege and making a great argument to turn the flow if information off. Case in point, 40M. That is a staring point for TESTING. Get that through your skulls. People and Devs have said it over and again, things will change between now and testing and they will change further between now and live, you guys are participating in arguments that could become absolutely irrelevant. The little back and forth between a certain few members has gotten out of control. It has turned into school yard BS with neither side producing much in the way of compelling arguments. Stop. The facts are, very few hard facts have been released and the ones that have been released are well known, stop making arguments based on what you want and keep it to the facts.
